Lawmakers and government officials on Monday discussed draft amendments to help secure Taiwan’s critical technologies from theft by China and other foreign powers. Although details of the proposals were not disclosed, they likely incorporate ideas brought up in October last year at a Taiwan-Japan-US workshop on intellectual property rights.
In a statement released on the opening day of the conference, American Institute in Taiwan Director Brent Christensen said that the protection of intellectual property rights “is the key ingredient to attract investment and encourage innovation.” Although neither Christensen nor Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Tien Chung-kwang (田中光) made specific mention of China, it is likely that Chinese theft of trade secrets was a topic at the gathering, or at least one of the motivations for holding it.
A Bloomberg report published on Jan. 27 addressed how the world’s reliance on Taiwanese semiconductor technology is a growing concern for policymakers. Therefore, it is reasonable that the US would be concerned about Chinese theft of Taiwanese technology and would want to cooperate with Taiwan to prevent it. There has also been a surge in prosecution of cases involving theft of trade secrets in the US.
Prosecuting intellectual property theft was difficult in the US, as state prosecutors were hampered when pursuing interstate or cross-border cases. Companies could pursue charges under the US Economic Espionage Act when theft involved a foreign power such as China or Russia, but the FBI often lacked the resources to pursue such lengthy investigations. For that reason, cases often failed to make it to trial, or prosecutors would simply pursue lesser charges.
Former US president Barack Obama addressed the issue with the Defend Trade Secrets Act, which went into effect in 2016. It allows companies to take trade-theft cases to federal court in the US.
Taiwan faces a similar issue. For example, a businessman found guilty in 2019 of stealing trade secrets related to the production of smart glass from two Taiwanese companies and selling them to a Chinese firm was sentenced to only 18 months in prison and fined NT$2 million (US$70,267). He had set up a local company through which he handled business dealings with the Chinese firm, and had traveled on several occasions with an engineer to Chengdu to teach Chinese engineers how to produce the glass.
Officials on Monday said that such cases are difficult to prosecute under current laws, because investigators are often unable to prove the involvement of foreign powers, or investigate matters outside of Taiwan.
This is concerning not only because of the economic implications, but also because technology sold to China that has military applications would almost certainly end up in the hands of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.
It is at least partly for this reason that officials are seeking to make a distinction between critical and noncritical technologies. Under the proposed amendments, situations involving critical technologies would be tried as national security cases, without the need for prosecutors to prove involvement by a foreign power. This would help protect national security, as well as the interests of Taiwanese firms.
However, just as with laws against misinformation, careful execution of the law is crucial to protect individuals from malicious litigation.
Hopefully, legislators will glean what they can from the experience of US officials. Cooperation with the US and other countries on the issue — such as sharing investigative information and extraditing suspects — would also prevent Taiwanese abroad from stealing trade secrets for China.
The US intelligence community’s annual threat assessment for this year certainly cannot be faulted for having a narrow focus or Pollyanna perspective. From a rising China, Russian aggression and Iran’s nuclear ambitions, to climate change, future pandemics and the growing reach of international organized crime, US intelligence analysis is as comprehensive as it is worrying. Inaugurated two decades ago as a gesture of transparency and to inform the public and the US Congress, the annual threat assessment offers the intelligence agencies’ top-line conclusions about the country’s leading national-security threats — although always in ways that do not compromise “sources and methods.”
Let’s begin with the bottom line. The sad truth of the matter is that Beijing has trampled on its solemn pledge to grant Hong Kong a great deal of autonomy for at least fifty years. In so doing, the PRC ignored a promise Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平) made to both Great Britain’s Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the wider world back in the early 1980s. This was at a time when Beijing, under Deng and his successors, appeared to be seeking an equitable accommodation with the West. I remain puzzled by China’s recent policy shift. Was it because Hong Kong was perceived
The recent removal of items related to Japanese Shinto culture from the Taoyuan Martyrs’ Shrine and Cultural Park has caused an uproar. The complex was built as a Shinto shrine by the Japanese during the colonial period, but was transformed into a martyrs’ shrine commemorating veterans of the Chinese Civil War after the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) retreated to Taiwan in 1949. Figurines of the Japanese sun goddess Amaterasu Okami were allowed into the shrine for a cultural event last year, attracting throngs of visitors to see the Shinto decorations and practices. However, some people accused the Taoyuan City Government of
The “US skeptic” and “Lai skeptic” arguments are gaining traction in Taiwanese political discourse, and might become a major campaign issue in the run-up to next year’s presidential election. The former says that the US cannot be trusted to defend Taiwan should China launch an invasion, while the latter says that Washington does not have the faith in Vice President William Lai (賴清德) — a self-described “pragmatic independence worker” who is seeking the top job — that it has in President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). There is precedent for concern after the way US President Joe Biden handled the withdrawal from Afghanistan, and